The Corporate Lie

Exposed is the intentional fraud instigated and maintained by the
legal industry on millions of unsuspecting victims. Exposed is the
dolus malus, deceit, dishonesty and fraudulent inducement hidden under
the rule that the legal industry cannot relinquish or reveal their
course of dealing and usage of trade to the public at large. Exposed
is a legal system that has brought us fascist governments, police
states, private banking cartels, income taxes, lost of rights,
discontent, degradation and unending wars, a legal system that has
served tyrants since its inception and continues to do so today.

Advertisements

Exposed is the intentional fraud instigated and maintained by the
legal industry on millions of unsuspecting victims. Exposed is
the dolus malus, deceit, dishonesty and fraudulent inducement
hidden under the rule that the legal industry cannot relinquish
or reveal their course of dealing and usage of trade to the
public at large. Exposed is a legal system that has brought us
fascist governments, police states, private banking cartels,
income taxes, lost of rights, discontent, degradation and
unending wars, a legal system that has served tyrants since its
inception and continues to do so today.

Click to expand...

I'm always fascinated about the hypocrisy of those who believe that
they know what most of the rest of us do not, and so decide that
they will save us from the evils they've discovered. What's
fascinating about it is how they are usually the ones who believe
the rest of us to be sheep upon whom *they*an prey. Examples:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Welcome my friends to what will now be the most important writing
you will have read in your life."
Not only am I not your friend, but you have no way of knowing if
your pontifications are the most important thing I've ever read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To start, how many of you understand or are even aware of, that all
states and all governments are corporations? "
What makes you think this is such a revelation? I've noticed that
ever since I was old enough to read a town or city limit sign. I
was also able to figure out that there are all sorts of
corporations, and so the fact that two entities are each
corporations doesn't necessarily mean that they have anything else
in common.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"'The United States was never a corporation...' - Stephen Jenuth
'Assuming Canada is a corporation, which is not admitted by me...' -
Stephen Jenuth
This my friends is indicative and is testimony to just how corrupt
the legal systems are."

Two comments in Usenet by one individual is "testimony" to the
corruption of the entire legal system?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But now we come to the classic mistake made by most of these
nitwits. They believe that because something is a product of the
intellect (of which they have very little), that it therefore does
not exist. That's it's all therefore fictitious. Amazingly,
however, they still rely on things like "ownership", and "property",
and "rights", and "morals", and "character", and "fairness", and
"legal", and all sorts of other concepts, all of which are also
nothing more than inventions of the intellect. None of those exist
except in the human mind.

Does that make any of them less real than a rock, or a tree? Are
all of these just "fictitious" too? Of course not. In fact, these
nut jobs rely on those "fictions" and "stories" to make their case
that "government" is "fictitious", and "corrupt". Amazingly, even
the concept of "corruption" is an invention of the human mind, but
that doesn't stop them from using it as though it were something
tangible and real.

And that's because intellectual entities are what they are, and they
are what we make of them, and if a government is just a fiction,
then corruption is just as fictitious, and so is love, and peace,
and fairness, and rights, and right, and everything else that they,
themselves, believe to be so precious.

Advertisements

I'm always fascinated about the hypocrisy of those who believe that
they know what most of the rest of us do not, and so decide that
they will save us from the evils they've discovered. What's
fascinating about it is how they are usually the ones who believe
the rest of us to be sheep upon whom *they*an prey. Examples:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Welcome my friends to what will now be the most important writing
you will have read in your life."
Not only am I not your friend, but you have no way of knowing if
your pontifications are the most important thing I've ever read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To start, how many of you understand or are even aware of, that all
states and all governments are corporations? "
What makes you think this is such a revelation? I've noticed that
ever since I was old enough to read a town or city limit sign. I
was also able to figure out that there are all sorts of
corporations, and so the fact that two entities are each
corporations doesn't necessarily mean that they have anything else
in common.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"'The United States was never a corporation...' - Stephen Jenuth
'Assuming Canada is a corporation, which is not admitted by me...' -
Stephen Jenuth
This my friends is indicative and is testimony to just how corrupt
the legal systems are."

Two comments in Usenet by one individual is "testimony" to the
corruption of the entire legal system?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But now we come to the classic mistake made by most of these
nitwits. They believe that because something is a product of the
intellect (of which they have very little), that it therefore does
not exist. That's it's all therefore fictitious. Amazingly,
however, they still rely on things like "ownership", and "property",
and "rights", and "morals", and "character", and "fairness", and
"legal", and all sorts of other concepts, all of which are also
nothing more than inventions of the intellect. None of those exist
except in the human mind.

Does that make any of them less real than a rock, or a tree? Are
all of these just "fictitious" too? Of course not. In fact, these
nut jobs rely on those "fictions" and "stories" to make their case
that "government" is "fictitious", and "corrupt". Amazingly, even
the concept of "corruption" is an invention of the human mind, but
that doesn't stop them from using it as though it were something
tangible and real.

And that's because intellectual entities are what they are, and they
are what we make of them, and if a government is just a fiction,
then corruption is just as fictitious, and so is love, and peace,
and fairness, and rights, and right, and everything else that they,
themselves, believe to be so precious.

It's all nothing but of bunch of word games, and misdirection.

Click to expand...

The Corporate Lie

Ah yes, the corporate lie. A lie to hide the fact that the legal
industry is maintaining corporate taxslave plantations ruled and
regulated by the dictatorial enslaving roman law of persons all
financed by a den of vipers. Where a man is unlawfully "incorporated"
into roman style corporate entities and the only rights to be had are
those associated to a rank held. Unknowingly accepting the "legal
identity" as his own, he is held liable for the performance of his
"person" as is dictated by the dictatorial roman law; the commands of
a fictitious entity - a person shall, a person shall not. Out the
window are his unalienable rights and his sovereignty in exchange for
an unjust system of fraud and oppression.

After a ton of verbiage Lex will eventually get around to telling us
that governments, legislatures, laws, inalienable rights and courts
aren’t real.

The poor boy just doesn’t realize that he can’t square his whacky
theory with the reality that Mortland’s right to privacy and freedom
from unreasonable search was protected by the U.S. federal court’s
recognition of the 5th amendment to the Constitution.

Ah yes, the corporate lie. A lie to hide the fact that the legal
industry

Click to expand...

If the government is fictitious because it's a corporation, and a
corporation is just a construct of the intellect, then so is the
law, and so then so is the legal industry. How can you have so many
problems with things of fiction?

is maintaining corporate taxslave plantations ruled

Click to expand...

No one can be ruled who is in a circumstance from which they can
voluntarily withdraw.

and
regulated by the dictatorial enslaving roman law of persons all
financed by a den of vipers. Where a man is unlawfully

Click to expand...

By your own standards, law is a fiction, and so it doesn't exist,
and so nothing can be unlawful.

"incorporated" into roman style corporate entities and the only
rights

Click to expand...

By your own standards, rights are a fiction, and so they do not
exist either.

As I see it, incorporated bodies in and of themselves, is not the
problem.

The problem is how they are being used by the evil people who immerce
themselves in the veil of the corporate body to deprive their fellow
man
of his/her life - the deprivation of the fruits of their labour and
the
deprivation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, property and
due
process of law, such as were stated in sections 20 and 39 of the
original Magna Carta.

The party posting as AllYou are demonstrating the evil methods of
'word smithing' while accusing others of doing the same.

And, Jack Foster. You spew:

The poor boy just doesn’t realize that he can’t square his whacky
theory with the reality that Mortland’s right to privacy and freedom
from unreasonable search was protected by the U.S. federal court’s
recognition of the 5th amendment to the Constitution.

Click to expand...

How many US Court cases need be cited where the the judge tells
the defendant that 'You are not party to the Constitution', and thus
tell the defendant that claiming Constitutional Rights amounts to
contempt of court.

Now, would this be because the defendant, who has identified himself
as a 'legal identity name' owned by the State or Crown as a slave,
is not a corporate signatory to that corporate document? Or is it
because,
as an accused disobedient slave, the defendant has been stripped of
the rights of due process of law under the Roman doctrine of homo
sacer,
and thus, no claim of right from any source will be acknowledged by
the court?

And, Jack, your insistant spewing about the Russell Dale Mortland
case as being a failure of Eldon's methods, it is obvious, if the man
called Russel Dale of the Mortland family is/was known and identified
to the court as the 'legal identity' Russell Dale Mortland, then he
wasn't
following any methods taught by Eldon Warman in his detax program.

As I see it, incorporated bodies in and of themselves, is not the
problem.

The problem is how they are being used by the evil people who immerce
themselves in the veil of the corporate body to deprive their fellow
man
of his/her life - the deprivation of the fruits of their labour and
the
deprivation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, property and
due
process of law, such as were stated in sections 20 and 39 of the
original Magna Carta.

The party posting as AllYou are demonstrating the evil methods of
'word smithing' while accusing others of doing the same.

And, Jack Foster. You spew:

How many US Court cases need be cited where the the judge tells
the defendant that 'You are not party to the Constitution', and thus
tell the defendant that claiming Constitutional Rights amounts to
contempt of court.

Click to expand...

Abbot) Wrong question, old man. You should be asking about the times
the protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (which you
call fictions) saved someone's very real liberty.

Now, would this be because the defendant, who has identified himself
as a 'legal identity name' owned by the State or Crown as a slave,
is not a corporate signatory to that corporate document? Or is it
because,
as an accused disobedient slave, the defendant has been stripped of
the rights of due process of law under the Roman doctrine of homo
sacer,
and thus, no claim of right from any source will be acknowledged by
the court?

And, Jack, your insistant spewing about the Russell Dale Mortland
case as being a failure of Eldon's methods, it is obvious, if the man
called Russel Dale of the Mortland family is/was known and identified
to the court as the 'legal identity' Russell Dale Mortland, then he
wasn't
following any methods taught by Eldon Warman in his detax program.

Vicegerent

Click to expand...

Abbot) You devious snake. I didn't say your method failed. I said you
lie about Mortland using it!

YOU said he used your method and even posted his MP3 file from Common
Law Venue on your website to make it seem he used your method! Now
that it turns out you lied, you pretend you don't know anything about
Mortland!

As I see it, incorporated bodies in and of themselves, is not the
problem.

The problem is how they are being used by the evil people who
immerce themselves in the veil of the corporate body to deprive
their fellow man
of his/her life - the deprivation of the fruits of their labour
and the
deprivation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, property
and due
process of law, such as were stated in sections 20 and 39 of the
original Magna Carta.

The party posting as AllYou are demonstrating the evil methods of
'word smithing' while accusing others of doing the same.

Click to expand...

And yet, unlike you, I fully supported my assertions with logical
arguments to exact quotes. If you were as fair in your assertions
and accusations, you'd provide a quote by where you believe this to
be true, and then you'd make an argument for why you believe it to
be true.

Instead, you blather on and on about all of the evils that someone
or other is perpetrating in all of the unsuspecting masses, but
other than hyperbole, you've got nothing.

And yet, unlike you, I fully supported my assertions with logical
arguments to exact quotes. If you were as fair in your assertions
and accusations, you'd provide a quote by where you believe this to
be true, and then you'd make an argument for why you believe it to
be true.

Instead, you blather on and on about all of the evils that someone
or other is perpetrating in all of the unsuspecting masses, but
other than hyperbole, you've got nothing.

Click to expand...

Abbot) All of Warman’s theories are borrowed from some other detaxer
or anti-government pseudo scholar. He doesn’t even understand them
himself. That and the dysfunction associated with his schizophrenia
are why he can’t defend his own theories, but can only repeat them.
Every time he gets nailed on a point (see his recent bashing about his
false claims of success in the Mortland case) he changes the subject
and starts to rant.

Eldon seems unable to grasp the supremacy of the constitutional law in
western democracies and instead palavers on about the Pope owning
North America, etc. etc.. . .

It has had no effect on the old boy’s thinking that he has, not once
in the last 24 years, had a single detax success and that many of the
“methods” he has borrowed were proven failures long before he
plagiarized them.

Abbot) All of Warman’s theories are borrowed from some other
detaxer or anti-government pseudo scholar. He doesn’t even
understand them himself. That and the dysfunction associated
with his schizophrenia are why he can’t defend his own theories,
but can only repeat them. Every time he gets nailed on a point
(see his recent bashing about his false claims of success in the
Mortland case) he changes the subject and starts to rant.

Eldon seems unable to grasp the supremacy of the constitutional
law in western democracies and instead palavers on about the
Pope owning North America, etc. etc.. . .

It has had no effect on the old boy’s thinking that he has, not
once in the last 24 years, had a single detax success and that
many of the “methods” he has borrowed were proven failures long
before he plagiarized them.

Click to expand...

I've never understood how some people can buy into their crap so
completely. They think it's a huge revelation that something like a
corporation isn't tangible, and so they proceed to call it
fictitious. They simply have no understanding that 'intangible' and
'fictitious' are no where near the same thing.

Here is a limited list of things that are fictitious IF viewed by
THEIR standards:

None of these are "tangible", and yet, the effects of that which
they define is just as real, and just as tangible as 'governments',
'corporations', and everything else that they claim is not real.
And that's where their "argument" collapses of its own weight. If
governments and corporations are fictitious, then so is slavery, and
oppression, and all of the other things they complain about.

In the end, either they are "complaining" about things which are no
more real than the Boogie Men under their beds, or they have no real
"complaints" at all, except that they cannot get something for
nothing.

I've never understood how some people can buy into their crap so
completely. They think it's a huge revelation that something like a
corporation isn't tangible, and so they proceed to call it
fictitious. They simply have no understanding that 'intangible' and
'fictitious' are no where near the same thing.

Here is a limited list of things that are fictitious IF viewed by
THEIR standards:

None of these are "tangible", and yet, the effects of that which
they define is just as real, and just as tangible as 'governments',
'corporations', and everything else that they claim is not real.
And that's where their "argument" collapses of its own weight. If
governments and corporations are fictitious, then so is slavery, and
oppression, and all of the other things they complain about.

In the end, either they are "complaining" about things which are no
more real than the Boogie Men under their beds, or they have no real
"complaints" at all, except that they cannot get something for
nothing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Click to expand...

Abbot) It’s really quite simple. Detaxers of this ilk do not recognize
any authority and rationalize doing so by saying the cops, the courts,
the legislature the government and even the law itself is a
nonexistent fiction. No matter how fair and just their government
might be, any over zealous cop, politician on the take, or clueless
judge only serves to reinforce their belief that ALL government is
evil. Indeed, in another thread you can see Warman using the taser
death of an immigrant at the Vancouver airport as an excuse for his
“The Pope Rules the World” theory.

Trying to point out to them the illogical bend of their argument is a
nonstarter since it would require that these detaxers recognize what
is wrong with them, not what’s wrong about the government.

The denial is doubly strong with detaxers like Eldon and StaR (Lex)
since a “reality intervention” in their case would include confronting
the reality that they have wasted their lives and ruined several
families with their insane detax babble.

The denial is doubly strong with detaxers like Eldon and StaR
(Lex) since a “reality intervention” in their case would include
confronting the reality that they have wasted their lives and
ruined several families with their insane detax babble.

Ah yes, the corporate lie. A lie to hide the fact that the legal
industry is maintaining corporate taxslave plantations ruled and
regulated by the dictatorial enslaving roman law of persons all
financed by a den of vipers. Where a man is unlawfully "incorporated"
into roman style corporate entities and the only rights to be had are
those associated to a rank held. Unknowingly accepting the "legal
identity" as his own, he is held liable for the performance of his
"person" as is dictated by the dictatorial roman law; the commands of
a fictitious entity - a person shall, a person shall not. Out the
window are his unalienable rights and his sovereignty in exchange for
an unjust system of fraud and oppression.

Ah yes, the corporate lie. A lie to hide the fact that the legal
industry is maintaining corporate taxslave plantations ruled and
regulated by the dictatorial enslaving roman law of persons all
financed by a den of vipers.

Click to expand...

Then you should be able to explain how it is that anyone can ever be
enslaved when they are in circumstances from which they can
voluntarily withdraw. But you can't, now can you.

Where a man is unlawfully
"incorporated"

Click to expand...

If, by your reasoning, a corporation fictitious because it is an
invention of the mind, then by that same reasoning, the law is also
fictitious. So how, then, can any action be unlawful?

into roman style corporate entities and the only
rights to be had are those associated to a rank held.

Click to expand...

If, by your reasoning, a corporation fictitious because it is an
invention of the mind, then by that same reasoning, the 'rights' are
also fictitious. So how, then, can you have any concern about
rights?

Unknowingly accepting

Click to expand...

Acceptance is an invention of the mind too.

the "legal identity" as his own,

Click to expand...

Possession is an invention of the mind too.

he is held liable

Click to expand...

Liability is an invention of the mind too.

for the performance of his "person" as is dictated
by the dictatorial roman law; the commands of a fictitious
entity - a person shall, a person shall not. Out the window are
his unalienable rights

Click to expand...

Unalienable rights are an invention of the mind too, and so they are
just as fictitious as a corporation, aren't they?

and his sovereignty

Click to expand...

Sovereignty is an invention of the mind too.

in exchange for an
unjust system of fraud and oppression.

Click to expand...

Justice, and Systems, and Fraud, and Oppression are all just
inventions of the mind too, and so they are just as fictitious as a
corporation, aren't they?

Or is it your position that only what's important to you is real,
and anything that stands in your way of getting something for
nothing is fictitious?

Then you should be able to explain how it is that anyone can ever be
enslaved when they are in circumstances from which they can
voluntarily withdraw. But you can't, now can you.

If, by your reasoning, a corporation fictitious because it is an
invention of the mind, then by that same reasoning, the law is also
fictitious. So how, then, can any action be unlawful?

If, by your reasoning, a corporation fictitious because it is an
invention of the mind, then by that same reasoning, the 'rights' are
also fictitious. So how, then, can you have any concern about
rights?

Acceptance is an invention of the mind too.

Possession is an invention of the mind too.

Liability is an invention of the mind too.

Unalienable rights are an invention of the mind too, and so they are
just as fictitious as a corporation, aren't they?

Sovereignty is an invention of the mind too.

Justice, and Systems, and Fraud, and Oppression are all just
inventions of the mind too, and so they are just as fictitious as a
corporation, aren't they?

Or is it your position that only what's important to you is real,
and anything that stands in your way of getting something for
nothing is fictitious?

--
"As the light repeatedly cycled from red to green to yellow and back
to red again, I sat there thinking about life. Was it nothing more
than a bunch of honking and yelling? Sometimes, it seemed that
way." - Unknown

Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha too funny!!

----------
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

"Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
----------
AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE

C-45 CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS

PROBLEM

A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
physical body and no "mind".
----------

But what you refuse to address is how the same logic you employed in
coming to the conclusion that a corporation is fictitious can't then
also be applied to conclude that rights, and ownership, and slavery,
and rule are not also fictitious. Your logic either works, or it
does not.

But what you refuse to address is how the same logic you employed in
coming to the conclusion that a corporation is fictitious can't then
also be applied to conclude that rights, and ownership, and slavery,
and rule are not also fictitious. Your logic either works, or it
does not.

Click to expand...

----------
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

"Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
----------
AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE

C-45 CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS

PROBLEM

A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
physical body and no "mind".
----------

But what you refuse to address is how the same logic you employed in
coming to the conclusion that a corporation is fictitious can't then
also be applied to conclude that rights, and ownership, and slavery,
and rule are not also fictitious. Your logic either works, or it
does not.

Click to expand...

Abbot) StaR/Lex makes his argument by employing the logical fallacy of
the undistributed middle (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/undismid.html)
to make it seem that the references to “legal fictions” and "fictions"
he has found in obiter dictum have the same meaning as a the
deliberate deceptions found in the legal use of the word “fictitious”.

Since the words “fictions” and “fictitious” sound alike a share some
usages StaR assumes they have the same meaning in all contexts.

Not so.

Black's Law tell us that "fictitious" means: Founded in fiction;
having the character of a fiction; pretend; counterfeited. Feigned,
imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent. Arbitrarily
invented and set up to accomplish an ulterior object.

But a "legal fiction" is a supposition of fact taken to be true by the
courts of law, but which are not necessarily true. They typically are
used to evade archaic rules of procedure or to extend the jurisdiction
of the courts in ways that were considered useful, but not strictly
authorized by the old rule.

They are two different terms with two different meanings!

Consequently StaR tells us that democratic governments are gathered
together by the people (a point nobody argues), and using his logical
fallacy wrongly concludes, in turn, that governments are “made up”,
thus a “fiction” and thus are “fictitious deceptions”. . .and thus are
“unreal” and “nonexistent”.

Thus to StaR the real becomes unreal.

You will note that StaR doesn’t quote any court decisions that say
governments are "non-existent". That’s because no court has ever
followed is twisted logic.

StaR’s been busted in his use of the undistributed middle so many
times that he should know better.

Neither do rights, but you believe that those are real, don't you?
Neither does ownership, but you believe that to be real as well.
Why is that?

Click to expand...

Poor AllYou, having been duped by his mentor Abbot the Retard for so
long, he is left with no choice but to parade his stupidity for all to
see. LMFAO

First, his mentor, Abbot the Retard, denied (lied) that a state was a
corporation of ANY SORT...

----------
"Nor do they form a corporation... they form a nation." - Quantrell
(aka Abbot the Retard)

"Hence I repeat we, the people, form a nation, not a corporation..." -
Quantrell (aka Abbot the Retard)

"The fact is Canada is not a corporation and you have never proven
that it is, except to give us interpretations of cases you can't
understand, and don't site properly." - Raider (aka Abbot the Retard)

"The Union of States was created by the U.S. Constitution and is not a
corporation." - Raider (aka Abbot the Retard)

"One need only to read the preamble to the Constitution to see that
the Framers were not creating either a public or private corporation.
They were creating "a more prefect union"." - Quantrell (aka Abbot the
Retard)
----------

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all
governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or
grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed
purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their
objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they
are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and
the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made."

"The federal government itself is but a corporation, created by the
grant or charter of the separate states;"
----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

by John Bouvier

CORPORATIONS

5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the
capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh.
Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law.

6. Nations or states, are denominated by publicists, bodies politic,
and are said to have their affairs and interests, and to deliberate
and resolve, in common. They thus become as moral persons, having an
understanding and will peculiar to themselves, and are susceptible of
obligations and laws. Vattel, 49. In this extensive sense the United
States may be termed a corporation; and so may each state singly. Per
Iredell, J. 3 Dall. 447.
----------
U.S. Supreme Court
CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

"The only law concerning corporations, to which I conceive the least
reference is to be had, is the common law of England on that subject.
I need not repeat the observations I made in respect to the operation
of that law in this country. The word 'corporations,' in its largest
sense, has a more extensive meaning than people generally are aware
of. Any body politic (sole or aggregate) whether its power be
restricted or transcendant, is in this sense 'a corporation.' The
King, accordingly, in England is called a corporation. 10 Co. 29. b.
So also, by a very respectable author (Sheppard, in his abridgement,
1Vol. 431.) is the Parliament itself. In this extensive sense, not
only each State singly, but even the United States may without
impropriety be termed "corporations."

"As to corporations, all States whatever are corporations or bodies
politic. The only question is, what are their powers? As to individual
States and the United States, the Constitution marks the boundary of
powers.""
----------

It is without question that a "government/state" is a CORPORATION
created by its instrument of incorporation (charter) called a
"constitution". But of course Allyou the Dupe says nothing of his
mentor's lies and blindly follows Abbot the Retard with more of his
lies.

LMAO. Who said anything about "legal fictions"??? Certainly not I!!!
lol But of course, Allyou the Dupe is "duped" once again by his mentor
Abbot the Retard and follows along.

Readers, what we are talking about is FICTION, that is, that which is
INVENTED OR IMAGINED by the mere FICTION OF THE MIND.

----------
Webster's 1828 Dictionary

fiction

FIC'TION, n. [L. fictio, from fingo, to feign.]

1. The act of feigning, inventing or imagining; as, by the mere
fiction of the mind.

2. That which is feigned, invented or imagined. The story is a
fiction.

So also was the fiction of those golden apples kept by a dragon,
taken from the serpent which tempted Eve.
----------

And what is the FICTION that we are talking about? What is INVENTED OR
IMAGINED by the mere FICTION OF THE MIND?

The "SEPARATE ENTITY" created by incorporation that is said to having
"its own rights, privileges, and liabilities" (a person).

----------
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition

cor-po-ra-tion

1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal
entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct
from those of its members.

2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body
corporate.

3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
----------

It is the "entity/being" created that is the FICTION. It is the
"entity/being" created that is INVENTED OR IMAGINED by the mere
FICTION OF THE MIND. There is NO SEPARATE EXISTENCE!! It's all MAKE-
BELIEVE, story telling at its very best. The "entity/being" DOES NOT
REALLY EXIST!!! lol

----------
AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE

C-45 CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS

PROBLEM

A corporation is a "fiction" as it has no separate existence, no
physical body and no "mind".
----------
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Professor Patrick Healy, professor of law at McGill University

" Well, your question goes directly to the heart of the issue. A
corporation is a fiction, by definition, and any attempt to construct
a model of criminal liability for a fiction will involve further
fictions. The question you ask is, where is the limit of the just
imposition of responsibility on these fictitious entities?.."
----------
Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd 1915 AC 705

"a corporation is an abstraction. -It has no mind of its own any more
than it has a body of its own;..."
----------
Michigan Law Review, vol. 79 (January 1981), p. 386

"Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has
no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?"
----------
The Case of Sutton's Hospital, Coke Report 1a, 77 Eng. Rep. 937
(Exchequer Chamber, 1613)

"They [corporations] cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed nor
excommunicate, for they have no souls."
----------

Indeed it is the "entity/being" created that is a FICTITIOUS ENTITY
described as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing
only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law,"

----------
A LAW DICTIONARY

ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION

by John Bouvier

CORPORATIONS

Chief Justice Marshall describes a corporation to be "an artificial
being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of
law. Being the mere creature of law," continues the judge, "it
possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation
confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very
existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect
the object for which it was created. Among the most important are
immortality, and if the expression may be allowed, individuality
properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are
considered, as the same, and may act as the single individual, They
enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property
without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless
necessityof perpetual conveyance for the purpose of transmitting it
from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of
men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that
corporations were invented, and are in use."
----------

"A corporation is a fiction, by definition.." - Professor Patrick
Healy, professor of law at McGill University

Poor AllYou, so messed up by his mentor that he can't even grasp the
basics of things.

Readers!!!! Come see what these two ranting fools are trying to hide
from you!!!

Welcome to Accountant Forums!

Welcome to the Accountant Forums, full of expert advice for accounting related topics.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about accountancy, tax and audit or chat with the community and help others.
Ask a Question

Useful Searches

We are a forum for professional accountants and tax advisers to discuss accountancy and taxation, but we also welcome individuals and business users who have queries relating to these matters. More About Us...